The Hawk Eye Newspaper Page 1 of 3

“on fiers ink. Subscribe Today | Search the Archive

THE : HAWK EYE Saiahnm>

LACE - SPECIALS * PHOTOS - CONTACT US * SUBSCRI

MY FROMT - HOME - NEWS - SPORTS - GEITUARIES * CLASS:

DS - MARK:

Few former IAAP workers claims paid

Other states seeing more success with federal filings.
By TODD DVORAK
The Associated Press

IOWA CITY — For much of his career, Jack Polson was the chief chemist at the 19,000—acre lowa Anr
Ammunition Plant, where production workers toiled in secrecy for decades assembling nuclear bombs.

Now 79, Polson suffers from bladder cancer, skin cancer and beryllium poisoning and is convinced the
government is trying to evade its promise to compensate him for his ailments, which followed years of
exposure to radiation and other harmful substances at the weapons plant.

"} think it's clear they are looking for an 'out' to pay claims," he said.
So far, 1,041 claims have been filed with the Department of Energy by former IAAP workers under a
federal program to compensate the nation's former nuclear weapons workers now diagnosed with health
problems.

Nearly 14,000 claims have been filed by workers nationwide.

of claims — to workers at plants in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Alaska, but workers at lesser Known 2 Z
plants in Iowa and elsewhere were jeft out. YB.
XY -

(a setting up the program in 2000, Congress gave a special exemption — providing for automatic payme \

While thousands of workers nationwide have been compensated, fewer than 50 claims filed by lowa
weapons workers have been paid.

Sen. Tom Harkin, D—Iowa, calls the former IAAP employees a forgotten bunch.

"These workers have waited years to be compensated,” said Harkin, who is working with other senators
fix the backlog of claims.

“Many of them are buried by burdensome health care bills after years of dealing with work-related illne:
and many have died waiting for compensation," he said.

{ Nuclear bomb components were tested and warheads were assembled and disassembled at the southeast
\\Jowa plant from the late 1940s until 1975.

hitp://www.thehawkeye.com/features/IA AP/breaking/b1_0703-html 8/8/2004



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

liiness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
aes OMB Number: 0920-0638 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 5 of 7

Basis for Proposing that Records and Information are Inadequate for Individual Dose —
Complete Section F.

Complete at least one of the following entries in this section by checking the appropriate box and providing
the required information related to the selection. You are not required to complete more than one entry.

F.1 Q IMWe have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation exposures and radiation doses potentially incurred by members of the proposed class,
that relate to this petition, were not monitored, either through personal monitoring or through area

monitoring.
(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that potential radiation exposures were not monitored.

Zwsull be fer prisrh if phere was any mon. Yorn,
gating on Ho protect PAt_tleaning Workers, Mom Keck
% z eb bn work J ¥ 07
Mentone ato oy 2yen on Sine ome.

F.2 Q I/We have attached either documents or statements provided by affidavit that indicate that
radiation monitoring records for members of the proposed class have been lost, falsified, or
destroyed; or that there is no information regarding monitoring, source, source term, or process
from the site where the employees worked.

(Attach documents and/or affidavits to the back of the petition form.)

Describe as completely as possible, to the extent it might be unclear, how the attached
documentation and/or affidavit(s) indicate that radiation monitoring records for members of the
proposed class have been lost, altered illegally, or destroyed.

My Bre Tae Cond ie Aaise othonplad
ye bud seek pedbcasS a Get Aacie tithes laten ddone+
wolled a

re weiowals aidh Cee Es Seugcer Mey were testesyed and we

aT Rnow oh

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



Ms. Kari Waller, Examiner

U. S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
719 Second Avenue, Suite 601

Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Ms. Waller:

My brother and I would like the DOL to go forward with our claim, and I am
writing this letter in an attempt to show why our claim should be placed under the special
exposure cohort provision of the EEOICP Act.

We believe this placement is warranted due to ambiguities and lost or missing

_ employment data pertinent to the operation of the [AAP in Middletown, Iowa. I would

liketociteafewexamples. = a a —

First, in previous correspondence to you, it was pointed out that Day and

Zimmerman, the plant contractors with the AEC prior to 1951, are unable to provide
information about my mother’s work sites at the plant. Also, I stated in my affidavit to
the DOL that University of lowa medical researchers, while able to determine my
mother’s two badge numbers, were unable to shed any light as to her work sites at the
plant due to lost or missing records.

Second, her employment history at the plant remains problematic. Social Security
information shows that my mother made contributions to the program in 1944, 1945, and
1946, when the plant was under the operation of Day and Zimmerman. Apparently no
contributions were made from 1947 to 1951. Yet, in your letter of December 19, 2003,
you wrote: “The Department of Energy (DOE) was able to provide us with the
termination date fol ” The central question here, of
course, is: How does one explain the five year gap regarding Social Security
contributions and the DOE’s termination date of my mother’s employment?

Third, is the DOE in fact correct when it asserts that my mother’s termination date
wad Was she not still a DOE employee when the plant was under the
administration of Silas Mason? Social Security records indicate that
reported contributions made by our mother from 1951, 1952, and 1953, and information


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

liiness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health
. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 7 of 7

Public Burden Statement

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 300 minutes per response,
including time for reviewing instructions, gathering the information needed, and completing the form. {f you
have any comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, send them to CDC Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton
Road, MS-E-11, Atlanta GA, 30333; ATTN:PRA 0920-XXXX. Do not send the completed petition form to this
address, Compieted petitions are to be submitted to NIOSH at the address provided in these instructions.
Persons are not required to respond to the information collected on this form unless it displays a currently

valid OMB number.

Privacy Act Advisement

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended (5 U.S.C. § 552a), you are hereby notified of the
following:

The Energy Employees Occupational Iliness Compensation Program Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385)
(EEOICPA) authorizes the President to designate additional classes of employees to be included in the
Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). EEOICPA authorizes HHS to implement its responsibilities with the
assistance of the National institute for Occupational Safety (NIOSH), an Institute of the Centers for Disease
Contro! and Prevention. information obtained by NIOSH in connection with petitions for including additional. -

classes of employees in the SEC will bé Used to évaluate the petition and report findings to the Advisory
Board on Radiation and Worker Health and HHS.

Records containing identifiable information become part of an existing NIOSH system of records under the
Privacy Act, 09-20-147 “Occupational Health Epidemiological Studies and EEOICPA Program Records.
HHS/CDC/NIOSH.” These records are treated in a confidential manner, unless otherwise compelled by law.
Disclosures that NIOSH may need to make for the Processing of your petition or other purposes are fisted
below.

NIOSH may need to disclose personal identifying information to: (a) the Department of Energy, other federal
agencies, other government or private entities and to private sector employers to permit these entities to
retrieve records required by NIOSH; (b) identified witnesses as designated by NIOSH so that these
individuals can provide information to assist with the evaluation of SEC petitions; (c) contractors assisting
NIOSH; (d) collaborating researchers, under certain limited circumstances to conduct further investigations;
(e) Federal, state and local agencies for law enforcement purposes; and (f) a Member of Congress or a
Congressional staff member in response to a verified inquiry.

This notice applies to all forms and informational requests that you may receive from NIOSH in connection
with the evaluation of an SEC petition.

Use of the NIOSH petition forms (A and B) is voluntary but your provision of information required by these
forms is mandatory for the consideration of a petition, as specified under 42 CFR Part 83. Petitions that fail to
Provide required information may not be considered by HHS.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services|

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Mines Compensation Act Nationat Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

. OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007
Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 6 of 7

F.3 QO IWe have attached a report from a health physicist or other individual with expertise in
radiation dose reconstruction documenting the limitations of existing DOE or AWE records on
radiation exposures at the facility, as relevant to the petition. The report specifies the basis for
believing these documented limitations might prevent the completion of dose reconstructions for
members of the class under 42 CFR Part 82 and related NIOSH technical implementation
guidelines.

{Attach report to the back of the petition form.)

F.4 Q We have attached a scientific or technical report, issued by a government agency of the
Executive Branch of Government or the General Accounting Office, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, or the Defense Nuclear Facilifies Safety Board, or published in a peer-reviewed
journal, that identifies dosimetry and related information that are unavailable (due to either a lack
of monitoring or the destruction or loss of records) for estimating the radiation doses of
employees covered by the petition. IP Such reports exe Zam
{Attach report to the back of the petition form.) Nepuestray 4 topy of some.

Signature of Person(s) Submitting this Petition — Complete Section G.

Se
ONO: Se

All Petitioners should sian and date the natitinn A mavimim of three persons may sign the petition.

Bfiofasp

Date

Signature Date

Signature Date
Notice: Any person who knowingly makes any false statement, misrepresentation, concealment of

fact or any other act of fraud to obtain compensation as provided under EEOICPA or who
knowingly accepts compensation to which that person is not entitied is subject to civil or
administrative remedies as well as felony criminal prosecution and may, under appropriate
criminal provisions, be punished by a fine or imprisonment or both. | affirm that the information
provided on this form is accurate and true.

Send this form to: SEC Petition
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
NIOSH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS-C-47
Cincinnati, OH 45226

Name or Social Security Number of First Petifion|



brother and I remain convinced that our mother worked on Line One at the plant — where
these deadly weapons were assembled.

Fifth, our mother’s case is being included in the University of Iowa’s study of
former AEC employees, yet the DOL has not acknowledged this fact as far as we know.

In summary, in the 2000 presidential election, both my brother and I voted for a
“compassionate conservative.” We believe that our president would be appalled if he
knew of the DOL’s shameful lack of compassion for our mother, and other cancer-
stricken former AEC employees at the IAAP.

Thank you for your time and attention. We will look forward to hearing from
you.

Sincerely,



08-23-04 a-- 6

IN
[Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Contro! and Prevention
iliness Compensation Act National institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

iy ai
Se SSL Cherabh ponent Ege On eer

General instructions on Completing this Form (complete instructions are available in a separate packet):
Except for signatures, please PRINT all information clearly and neatly on the form.

Please read each of Parts A — G in this form and complete the parts appropriate to you. If there is more
than one petitioner, then each petitioner should complete those sections of parts A — C of the form that apply
to them. Additional copies of the first two pages of this form are provided at the end of the form for this pur-
pose. A maximum of three petitioners is allowed.

If you need more space to provide additional information, use the continuation Page provided at the end of
the form and attach the completed continuation page(s) to Form B.

If you have questions about the use of this form, please call the following NIOSH toll-free phone number and
request to speak to someone in the Office of Compensation Analysis and Support about an SEC petition:
1-800-356-4674.

OA Labor Organization, StartatD on Page3

Hyou An Energy Employee (current or former), StartatC on Page 2
are: @ A Survivor (of a former Energy Employee), StartatB on Page 2
OA Representative (of a current or former Energy Employee), StartatA on Page1

A_ Representative information — Complete Section A if you are authorized by an Empioyee or
Survivor(s) to petition on behaif of a class.

Are you a contact person for an organization? O Yes (Go to A.2) ue No (Go to A.3)

A.2 Organization information:

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
AS Name of Petition Representative:

Mr./Mrs./Ms. First Name Middle Initial Last Name
A4 Address:

Street Apt# P.O. Box

City State Zip Code
A5 Telephone Number: ( d
A. — Email Address:

A.7 Check the box at left to indicate you have attached to the back of this form written authorization to
petition by the survivor(s) or employee(s) indicated in Parts B or C of this form. An authorization
form for this purpose is provided.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



Ms. Kari Waller, Examiner

U. S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers” Compensation Programs

Energy Employees Occupational Iiness Compensation Program
719 Second Avenue, Suite 601

Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Ms. Waller:

Thank you for your let’ ~* rer" 76 2004 in which you requested further
documentation of my mother’ nedical records and employment history.

My brother told me today that he sent to you copies of my mother’s medical
_records, obtained at no small expense. Unfortunately, providing information about my

mother’s work history has been much more difficult, but no less exp ensive.

On November 20, 2003, I signed, dated and returned forms EE-2 and EE-3 to Ms. :

Janice Barton, a caseworker at the Energy Employees Compensation Resource Center in
‘Westminister, Colorado. Ms. Barton was kind enough to fill out these forms for me
based on an extended telephone conversation a few days earlier. On form EE-3, based on.
memories of almost fifty years ago, I guessed that the “approximate” date of my mother’s
employment history at the IOP was 1953 to 1957. Since then, thanks to information
provided by the DOL, I have Jearned that the exact termination date of my mother’s
employment at the IOP was June 15, 1951. So far, my mother’s hire date at the plant has
not been determined, nor, as far as I know, has her work site at the plant.

In an effort to answer these questions, I was able to utilize information provided
to me by Ms. Barton during our phone conversation. She suggested that I contact Ms.
Connie Hutchcroft at American Ordnance, a successor to the IOP.

Ina letter to me dated November 27, 2003, Ms. Hutchcroft acknowledged the
receiving of my letter, said she has no record of my mother’s employment at the IOP, and
said that perhaps my mother was employed at the plant prior to 1951, when Day and
Zimmerman were contractors at the plant. She also said that she had forwarded my letter
to Day and Zimmerman.

On November 25, 2003, I received a letter from Ms. Arnette Ross, Administrative
Assistant at Day and Zimmerman. She apparently misinterpreted my letter because she


provided by University of Iowa medical researchers indicates clearly that Silas Mason
managed the plant from 1951 to 1975 under the auspices of either the AEC or the DOE.

Fourth, the ambiguities regarding the U. S. government’s oversight of the plant, I
believe, are profound. For example, Ms. Janice Barton, the DOL case worker who
helped me fill out form EE-2, told me yesterday by phone that the AEC only provided

oversight of the plant, starting in 1953. When I told her I thought the correct date was
1951, when Silas Mason become the subcontractor at the plant, she said that’s not what
her “book” indicated, but that she’d look into my claim. Within a half hour she called
back and said that I was, in fact, correct about the 1951 date.

And to compound the uncertainties that exist pertinent to the operation of the
plant, you will no doubt remember that you told me yesterday by phone that, while Silas
Mason was subcontractor of the AEC, they ran other plant operations that were not under
the auspices of the AEC. I am confused about this because University of lowa medical
researchers are not making this distinction when it comes to the exposure to radiation at
the plant. Mr. Howard Nicholson told me by phone that my mother was a DOE
employee, and that their records indicate that she developed metastatic breast cancer. I
believe that this statement made by a medical researcher of the plant’s employees should
be accorded considerable weight. After all, if our mother is to be included in a
government sponsored study for the DOE, to deny our request for her inclusion in the
special exposure cohort status would, we feel, be contrary to the rationale for drafting the

-special exposure provision in the first place. In fact, to deny our request, we believe,

would be a violation of both the letter and the spirit of that act.” ~~~

In sum, while no amount of money would be able to compensate for the ten years
of pain and financial loss that preceeded her death as a result of her employment by the
AEC, we feel that the U. S. government’s granting of our request for special cohort status
would be a good faith effort to make up for the harm it unintentionally caused our
mother.

Thank you for your time and attention. We will look forward to hearing from
you.



Ms. Kari Waller, Examiner

U. S. Department of Labor

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

Energy Employees Occupational Ifiness Compensation Program
719 Second Avenue, Suite 601

Seattle, WA 98104

Dear Ms. Waller:

After consulting my brother, I am writing to make explicit those points that we
have expressed implicitly to you in previous correspondence. There are five.

First, the entire process is frought with ambiguity — even at the most superficial
level. I'll cite just two examples. Both you and Ms. Dori Omon asked us for the same
information. To whom were we to send this information? This question was answered

_only when you told my. brother that you were (are) the-contact person; and-that Ms.Omon~ ~

had turned our file over to you. Further, at one time either you or Ms. Omon asked for a
copy of our father’s death certificate. After considerable time and effort, we obtained a
copy only to learn that it was not needed after all.

Second, on a much more profound level, we were not informed by the DOL of the
“special exposure cohort status” for those former cancer-stricken AEC (DOE) former
workers at the IAAP (IOP)? This was clearly the intent of lowa Senator Tom Harkin
when he drafted the EEOICP Act. Yet the DOL kept us in the dark about this vital
provision, suggesting that our claim would likely be denied in the absence of our
mother’s work site documentation.

Third, that our mother was a former AEC worker who died from breast cancer is
beyond question. If you have examined her medical records (sent either to you or Ms.
Omon), you will see that the last ten years of her life were years of untold suffering as the
cancer ravaged her kidneys, lungs and bones. And I’m sure that you can well imagine the
financial hardship that exacerbated this suffering.

Fourth, the DOL has failed to inform us that cancer-stricken IAAP workers
undoubtedly contracted the disease as a result of the AEC’s assembling and test-firing
nuclear weapons at the plant without providing adequate protection for workers. Sadly,
this state of affairs characterized the U. S. nuclear industry in the early 1950s. Also my


E2

E.3

E.4

ES

Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
lliness Compensation Act National Institute for Ocoupational Safety and Health

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 4 of 7

OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Locations at the Facility relevant to this petition:

Severe! ~— in + taaling Lene L

List job titles and/or job duties of employees included in the class. In addition, you can list by
name any individuals other than petitioners identified on this form who you believe should be

included in this class:

Custocks) / Matvons- Cleans up @ Severa/

lecations as 438197 bal

Employment Dates relevant to this petition:

Start 19 #4 End _/2 #6

Start L9S/ End L953

Start End

Is the petition based on one or more unmonitored, unrecorded, or inadequately monitored or
recorded exposure incidents?: ‘ Yes Q No

Afyes, provide the date(s) of the incident(s) and-a complete description (attach additional pages |
as necessary):
it Aove no rvs

benes, of an

LOOP =~ Laefuching Lint One.

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitione



The Hawk Eye Newspaper Page 2 of 3

The plant operated under a shroud of secrecy until 1998, when a former worker battling cancer contactec
Harkin for help.

Under the federal compensation program, doctors must investigate each claim, review work histories, pl:
records and monitoring data to determine if an employee's exposure merits approval.

Va
Net workers at the Jowa plant had trouble supporting their claims because records had been moved, \

tered or lost. J
Federal officials have found few records monitoring radiation at the Jowa despite months of.
\_ Searchin, ig with the Department of Energy and the various contractors that ran the factory. J

4 -

) "Bar and away, it is one of the worst cases of monitoring and record-keeping out there," said Richard :)
: Miller, a policy analyst with The Government Accountability Project.
\

Former worker Paul Cross, who worked in the safety department for eight years, says daily monitoring a
record keeping was a priority — but he's at a Joss to explain the whereabouts of those records now.

“We had all kinds of data recorded on radiation," said Cross, who filed a claim after contracting lympho:
in 1987. "I've heard the talk about how management was sloppy, but it was a well-run operation.”

In the absence of such data, federal officials are relying on a "site profile," prepared by scientists from th
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

But critics contend the profile is flawed, including: ~~ TOT eo cee

Failure to recognize several operations that took place at the plant, specifically the factory line where as
many as 40 workers disassembled old or malfunctioning weapons.

Using records at a plant in Texas to base assumptions on operations, exposure levels and monitoring dat:

_ Failing to interview workers who could have provided important details about record keeping, monitorin
and operations.

"Is this a believable approach to be taking when processing these claims?" Miller said. “Is this exactly w
Congress intended when it passed a law to take care of these workers?"

Larry Elliot, director of the office of compensation analysis for NIOSH, said the site profile is still a wor
in progress.

He said the agency is working to obtain classified documents from the DOE to fill in gaps during the firs
10 years of nuclear bomb production, and officials will soon begin interviewing former workers to draw
clearer picture of operations and monitoring practices at AAP.

Because the site profile lacks adequate data from the earliest years of production, Elliot said claims filed
workers from that period are being put on hold. He also defended its use of operating assumptions at oth
plants.

"This is a living document," Elliot said. "We think it's a good start ... and we're looking for additional da

hitp://www.thehawkeye.com/features/IA AP/breaking/b1_0703.btml 8/8/2004


Ba AMOUNT
sci $1 1h

SEC Petition
OR ie of Gmpensat on

Anel ysis cs. coppo et
NT os 4
46 7@ Colombia. Pyrkeva MS-C.-¥7
CrruAnati, OH, 45996


Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
llness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
OMB Number: 0920-0639 Expires: 05/31/2007

Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B Page 3 of 7
Labor Organization Information — Complete Section D ONLY if you are a labor organization,

D.1 Labor Organization Information:
N/A

Name of Organization

Position of Contact Person
D.2 Name of Petition Representative:

D.3 Address of Petition Representative:

Street Apt # P.O. Box
City State Zip Code
D4 Telephone Number of Petition Representative:

D.5 Email Address of Petition Representative:

D.6 Period during which labor organization represented employees covered by this petition
(please attach documentation): Start End

D.7 Identity of other labor organizations that may represent or have represented this class of
__employees (if known): _ oe co

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitioner:



Special Exposure Cohort Petition — Form B

Complete Section 8 if you are a Su

urvivor Informatio:

ivor or represe

B.1 Name of Survivor:

Special Exposure Cohort Petition U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
under the Energy Employees Occupational Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Miness Compensation Act National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

OMB Number: 0920-0639. Expires: 05/31/2007

Middle Initial Last Name

B.2 Or urity Number of Survivor:

B3 ddirace af Gre

y orale)
B.4 Telephone Number of Survivor:
B.5 Email Address of Survivor:

.O. Box

Page 2 of 7

B.6 Relationship to Employee: Ul Spouse 3a SonsDaughter UO Parent
O Grandparent Q Grandchild

Employee Information
Name of Fenton

‘rst Name Middle initial Last Name

C.?\ Former Name of Emniovee fea maiden namalianal nama channalnthar\s

—— TIStWannte Widale Initrat Tast Nama
C.3 Social Security Number of Employee:

C4 Address of Employee (if living):
teeageck

Stree?—————-"> Apt # P.O. Box

City State ; Zip Code
C5 Telephone Number of Employee: ;__ 5

C.6 Email Address of Employee:
C7 Employment Information Related to Petition!

C.7a Employee Number (if known):
9V.?y ——$——j77-
C.7b Dates of Employment: Start 2A End

C.7c Employer Name:
C.7d Work Site Location: lowe Ordinene Pleat

neon Tost,
C.7e Supervisor's Name: Not Kn Ob

Name or Social Security Number of First Petitio



wrote: “Records for employees who worked at the lowa Army Ammunition Plant prior
to WW ILare stored ata U.S. Government Personnel Records Center.” She was also
kind enough to provide an address for the Center.

Later that day, I wrote back to her that Twas seeking information on my mother’s
employment the plant after the start of WW Il. In early December, after not hearing from
Ms. Ross, I called her office. She told me that all existant Day and Zimmerman. records
for the JOP had been sent to the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis. She
also said that “ninety-five” percent of employment inquiries such as mine fail to be
substantiated by the Center. Naturally, I was not surprised when, yesterday, I received a
letter dated “1-15-03"[sic] from William D. Bassman, Chief, Reference Service Branch at
the St. Louis Center. He wrote that he found no records of “Federal Civilian.
Employment” for my mother. Similarly, he was unable to find any record of my father’s
(Milton Larson) employment history at the IOP.

In my letter of 11-19-03 to the St. Louis Center, I also inquired about his
employment history at the IOP because he died at age 60 of a cardiovascular disease. I
thought that his death at a relatively early age might be related to his employment at the
JOP. That he indeed worked at the plant is noted on my birth certificate, a copy of which
was sent to the DOL.

As you see, I was born on January 12, 1941, and my research indicates that Day

“and Zimmerinan were contractors at the IOP from 1940 to 1951. J find it curious that
neither Day and Zimmerman nor the National Personnel Records Cenitér has been-able to —. -

document that he worked at the plant.

As you know, I have enlisted the aid of lowa Senator Charles Grassley’s office in
an effort to establish my mother’s work history at the IOP. Also, I have returned the
appropriate Social Security form that your office was kind enough to send me. I await to
see if these efforts shed at least some light on this matter. They certainly can be no more
unsuccessful than the five-day, $215 personal ad that I placed in the Gazette, a newspaper
that now serves the Burlington, lowa area.

In summary, let me say that my brother and I will continue our efforts to explore
all avenmes in this matter. We hope to be able to provide additional data by February 16,
2004.

Thank you for your time and attention.



The Hawk Eye Newspaper Page 3 of 3

"With the monitoring information that was collected from plants in Texas and elsewhere, we feel the site
profile presents a strong case for the worst levels of exposure that could have happened at Iowa,” he said

But many of the lowa workers are dying.

N "The workers at [AAP and their families devoted their lives to our national security, and their compensat

is Jong overdue," Harkin said.

Last week, the Senate attached to a defense spending bill an amendment that would create a special
emption for workers at IAAP and the St. Louis~based Mallinckrodt Chemical Co., a fioxide

The measure, sponsored by Harkin and Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., would make workers eligible for automa:
payment and sidestep dose reconstruction.

The bill now must survive a joint House and Senate conference committee when Congress retums from
recess next month.

The Hawk Eye
800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601
319-754-8461 - 1-800-397-1708 - FAX 319-754-6824 - webmaster@thehawkeye.com

7 3 8/8/2004